1
ToxicLibertyism 1 point ago +1 / -0

Won't

What is that, a contraction for "wone not?" So professional!

6
ToxicLibertyism 6 points ago +6 / -0

Palantir is pure commie/nazi evil. Nothing she is saying here surprises me. If Trump is influenced in any way by Palantir, then I can promise you that a lot of the dumbshit people he appointed came from his Palentir "republican" buddies.

2
ToxicLibertyism 2 points ago +2 / -0

https://heyitsfrog.bandcamp.com/track/doom-song

I dont know why I'm posting that, but the song came out on day number 17, by a band called "Frog" and has a frog on the album cover, and it's called "the doom song."

1
ToxicLibertyism 1 point ago +1 / -0

This could be the motto for the GOP.

7
ToxicLibertyism 7 points ago +8 / -1

I'm calling bullshit on the whole story. "Iran" did not hack Trump's computers, anymore than "Russia" hacked the democrats.

If the computers were really hacked, the first place to look to find the culprit is Crowdstrike.

1
ToxicLibertyism 1 point ago +1 / -0

Where was the 5ft ladder recovered from (Wray testified that it wasn't recovered at the site nor in his vehicle)?

During the hearings it was stated by Wray that the ladder was found "near Crooks' home." But, they have not provided any info on exactly where that was.

Wray did also comment about the scope (or lack of one) on the AR, but I don't recall what he said.

9
ToxicLibertyism 9 points ago +9 / -0

Maybe parents need an app to do that again- rout their kids phone calls and texts to the parents first. Kids these days wouldn't know what to do. 🤣

0
ToxicLibertyism 0 points ago +1 / -1

To confirm it we need a pic of the ladder with a time stamp on it prior to 6:10pm. A pic without a timestamp does not confirm that Crooks put the ladder up.

1
ToxicLibertyism 1 point ago +2 / -1

You need to show a pic or video that proves the ladder was there before Crooks. I have looked for that, and nothing I have found can prove that.

3
ToxicLibertyism 3 points ago +4 / -1

It now appears that the big ladder was brought in by cops, after Crooks was dead.

That means that the USSS left a building undefended, that literally anyone could climb on top of without any equipment needed. That is beyond negligence.

3
ToxicLibertyism 3 points ago +3 / -0

This makes the 3rd different video I have seen of that object hovering front and center near the water tower, then zooming away super fast.

I am guessing that is the object you are talking about?

4
ToxicLibertyism 4 points ago +4 / -0

The theory I am currently holding is that both Crooks and Yearnick were patsy's, and that there were at least 2 additional (real trained) assassin's hidden. Each of the real assassin's had a patsy. Only 1 of the real snipers fired though, because the plot got busted once Crooks was found. Yearnick became a "loose end" at that point, and will likely never be seen again.

2
ToxicLibertyism 2 points ago +3 / -1

Maybe, but I imagine that Cooks had a higher elevation from being near the roof peak. I doubt the cop body cam would be able to tilt upwards- unlike his head/eyes could.

5
ToxicLibertyism 5 points ago +5 / -0

Ya. I am completely on board with the idea that this cop actually risked his life to try to confront Crooks, and not the initial "hes the failure" narrative that the media was originally pushing.

He was literally only hanging with half of his body onto that roof, while a crazy had an AR aimed at his head.

5
ToxicLibertyism 5 points ago +6 / -1

I don't get that either. Maybe that's just something the cops say whenever they approach a downed person, unsure if he is actually dead or not?

2
ToxicLibertyism 2 points ago +2 / -0

These days, many are synchronized down to a split second, due to so many clocks/phones/cameras etc. all being connected to wifi towers, which are all synchronized to satellites, all of which are synchronized with extreme digital precision.

This photographer was using a Sony A1 camera which does have wifi function, and was connected to a satellite wifi hotspot- that means satellite communication, through wifi towers, etc., meaning there is a very, very strong likelihood that the time on his camera is indeed accurate, down to a split second.

That begs the question asked above: Why report 6:11 when you have photos that show 6:10?

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›